Apparently one of the Portsmouth papers have suggested that the likely punishment facing Tony Oakey is a two year ban, following him testing positive for Cocaine after his recent defeat by Matthew Barney.
Barry McGuigan believes that a two year ban will signal the end for Oakey, I do have to agree. I do worry about what Oakey will do with himself in the two year period and I hope he doesn't do a Georgie Smith and get into more trouble.
If this the punishment, what does everyone think? I personally think it sounds a little harsh, however, I don't think this is a black and white case. Its not like a steriod (which can be found in over the counter stimulants), it was no accident. Even if, there wasn't a high amount of cocaine in the sample, it doesn't condone what he done - it was illegal and of course he could face a police investigation. The BBBoC must stick to their policy, now I'm sure there have been similar instances where the fighter has not recieved such a severe sentence.
What does everyone think.
Oakey to get two years suspension?
Here's the views of a Canadian poster on another site that I post on. I encourage you to read.
2 years is a bit steep. I can think of at least two precedents in the US.
(1) When Mike Tyson tested positive for marijuana after the Golota bout, the Michigan commission suspended him for 90 days.
(2) Pernell Whitaker tested positive for cocaine after a fight with Andrei Pestraiev in 1997. This bout was held on an Indian ...reservation in Connecticut, and so no state commission had jurisdiction, but I believe the WBA (whose title was at stake) suspended Sweet Pea for six months.
Three or six month suspensions aren't much of a big deal for top professional prizefighters who might only fight a couple times per year anyway. Furthermore, that assumes that the various state and Indian boxing commissions and the sanctioning bodies are going to uphold each other's suspensions. I think this is why the BBBC was able to impose a harsher penalty, given its monopoly.
Personally, I like the idea of harsh penalties, as it will hopefully serve to steer a large number of young fighters away from the drug use that might be going on around them. In addition, you could make the case that these are performance enhancing drugs that should be banned from the ring for the sake of the opponent's safety. Finally, if it were ever discovered that a boxer was a junkie at the time he was seriously injured in the ring, it would be yet another black mark for boxing.
2 years is a bit steep. I can think of at least two precedents in the US.
(1) When Mike Tyson tested positive for marijuana after the Golota bout, the Michigan commission suspended him for 90 days.
(2) Pernell Whitaker tested positive for cocaine after a fight with Andrei Pestraiev in 1997. This bout was held on an Indian ...reservation in Connecticut, and so no state commission had jurisdiction, but I believe the WBA (whose title was at stake) suspended Sweet Pea for six months.
Three or six month suspensions aren't much of a big deal for top professional prizefighters who might only fight a couple times per year anyway. Furthermore, that assumes that the various state and Indian boxing commissions and the sanctioning bodies are going to uphold each other's suspensions. I think this is why the BBBC was able to impose a harsher penalty, given its monopoly.
Personally, I like the idea of harsh penalties, as it will hopefully serve to steer a large number of young fighters away from the drug use that might be going on around them. In addition, you could make the case that these are performance enhancing drugs that should be banned from the ring for the sake of the opponent's safety. Finally, if it were ever discovered that a boxer was a junkie at the time he was seriously injured in the ring, it would be yet another black mark for boxing.
-
TerribleTerry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30
C'mon man - 2 years is idiocy and I would hope that Oakey would challenge any such ruling in the court.
The idea that athletes/ boxers don't use recreational drugs is lunacy and whilst it does the game no favours its a fact of lfe.
Kirkland Laing was said to be smoking pot only days before getting beaten by Buck Smith, as mentioned there is Whitaker, Curry, Taylor, Dokes, '2 sharp' Johnson, Micheal Nunn (post boxing I believe) and many more unnamed.
Punish him and make him look like the fool he is, but don't denigh him making a livelihood over something he does in his spare time...
Steroids cheats in athletics only get a two year ban and that is for stimulants which will help them cheat in sport - this case is of a foolish boxer who 'partied' too hard in my view.
The idea that athletes/ boxers don't use recreational drugs is lunacy and whilst it does the game no favours its a fact of lfe.
Kirkland Laing was said to be smoking pot only days before getting beaten by Buck Smith, as mentioned there is Whitaker, Curry, Taylor, Dokes, '2 sharp' Johnson, Micheal Nunn (post boxing I believe) and many more unnamed.
Punish him and make him look like the fool he is, but don't denigh him making a livelihood over something he does in his spare time...
Steroids cheats in athletics only get a two year ban and that is for stimulants which will help them cheat in sport - this case is of a foolish boxer who 'partied' too hard in my view.
In my mind the issue should be whether or not the drug he tested postitive for is deemed performance enhancing. If it is then throw the book at him.
If it is not then the charge should be that he has broken the law and brough boxing into disrepute, in the same way as a boxer does if he is convicted of assault and this wouldn't be much more than a 3 month ban.
If it is not then the charge should be that he has broken the law and brough boxing into disrepute, in the same way as a boxer does if he is convicted of assault and this wouldn't be much more than a 3 month ban.